I read the PM's statement today about the event at Montreal on Dec 6, 1989. I beg to differ, but the women were not killed simply because they were women. that is now an outdated way of looking at it. It was complicated, and it was about some men having to give up opportunities of the career they dreamed of. Marc Lépine must have been treated badly by women - staff - and feminists to have done what he did.

I know what it's like to not be able to have the career you wanted, because you didn't have enough money, or were too old when you went to university - I was 43 when the killings happened - an undergrad at university. Since then I got my MA and started a PhD, which I did not have enough support for, moneywise. When women go for it, they have to use every resource they can drum up. I was too old to start having to compete with younger women, and could not buy my way into a better position.

I never had a career either, but I did learn to write, and so I write, on Sue's Views on the News. Or at least, I used to write. Now I struggle just to get the healthcare I need, a good part of the time, unsuccessfully. What with women secretaries using their power to make things worse, and doctors probably thinking these women are to be trusted, and seeing no reason to provide care to a 70 year old with no husband, no family nearby to be at appointments with me, that no one is gaining anything worthwhile from, I have been left out. Like Marc Lépine, I have not been treated fairly nor compassionately.

This was not a typical situation of violence against women. Most violence against women happens between a couple who at least know one another and are often married. The killings committed by Marc Lépine were about a man being left behind while feminists prospered.

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women:

“Twenty-seven years ago today, 14 young women were murdered at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal simply because they were women.

“On this somber anniversary, let us reflect on what Canadians – women, men, and youth – can do to rid the country and the planet of the scourges of misogyny and gender-based violence.
“The statistics on violence against girls and women are unacceptable. Far too many girls and women, here in Canada and around the world, suffer physical and psychological harm at the hands of others – often people they love and trust.

“On this day – and every day – we recommit ourselves to finding solutions that help prevent future acts of violence. Men and boys are a vital part of the solution to change attitudes and behaviours that allow for this violence to exist. There must be zero tolerance for violence against women, and only with everyone’s support can we build a Canada that is safe for all.

“That is why the Government of Canada is investing in several programs, both in Canada and around the world, to help promote gender equality by supporting education and prevention efforts, as well as helping those who have been targeted by gender-based violence. For example, we will continue to grow and maintain Canada’s network of shelters and transition houses, so no one fleeing domestic violence is left without a place to turn.

“As we mourn today with the families and friends of those bright and talented young women who were victims of that senseless act of hatred, I encourage everyone to think about how their own personal actions matter. Start by joining the conversation online using the hashtag #ActionsMatter. Together we can change minds and stop gender-based violence before it starts.”

26 January 2016

Having been involved in Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal process since the summer of 2015, I can now say for certain the Human Rights process - at least the way it was conducted in my case - is a farce. It may work for some people, of course, but I hasn’t worked for me.

One of the reasons I say this is that, while attempting to get one of the main issues of contention between the Respondent and myself, the Applicant, resolved, I can see how the process has worked in his favour. And if the process itself hasn’t, while running its natural course, then the people working in it have enabled it to benefit him.

One

The Application I made to the HRT was to declare that the Respondent – my family doctor at the time – had discriminated against me on the grounds of sex, marital and family status, and age. I followed the rules and submitted 5 ‘important documents’ and one audio recording that I would be using at the hearing, as well as providing a list of them, stating the importance of each, as required in that section of the form. As the Applicant, I also had to provide a thorough description of the two incidents of discrimination and how they affected me, and what remedies I was seeking, which did not include a monetary remedy only ones directed to the Respondent himself and recommendations within society. See Remedies sought from the HRT.

Then it was up to the Respondent to write an official Response, using an HRT form for that, which he did in July, 2015. On it he wrote the name of only one document – The Medical Chart of McMcPherson – giving the reason it was important as “describes the care provided to Ms McPherson.” It was at about this time that I inquired from the Legal Support Centre what was menat by the term ‘Document.’ I got no answer on that.

This was the first of the three times in all that the Respondent and the Applicant (myself) were required to declare what documents we were bringing to the hearing – or relying on, or might be using.

I did respond the Respondent’s official response, but the Form 3 I used said only respond to new issues, so that matter of the one bundle of documents – being my Medical Chart – remained unaddressed.

Two

The second time we were required to declare the documents - in a formal Disclosure of “Arguably relevant Documents” - was by September 1, 2015, which I did, submitting my by then 7 documents plus 2 audio recordings by the deadline, but receiving nothing in return from the Respondent.

I contacted the Respondent and the HRT via an official form and was hastily sent the bundle of items previously mentioned by the Respondent – the Medical Chart. There were no dates on them, not in chronological order, no description of each page or their importance, nor their relevance, as was stated to be the new requirement – that they be arguably relevant.

I was concerned about the bundle being passed off as a single ‘Document’ but was advised by HRT to wait as a third deadline would soon be approaching, and perhaps all would be resolved by then.

Three

The third and last deadline was Dec 29, 2015, by which time the Applicant and Respondent were to have submitted all the documents they were going to “rely on” at the hearing in February. By this time the Respondent had put numbers and titles on each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. But nowhere was the importance of the ‘Document’ or it relevance included, except meant to be as a “description of the care provided to Ms McPherson.”

I objected strenuously. And the Respondent’s lawyer objected in return, and in two Interim Decisions and one Case Direction, decisionmakers at the HRT sided with the doctor – the Respondent. I get to use my 7 pages, and he gets to use 103 – if he needs to.

If I need to defend myself against anything that is raised by the documents he produces in self-defence, I don’t have anything. We both submitted documents starting in April, his in July, 2015, me providing insight as to why mine were important, the doctor providing nothing, except to say they described the care provided to me.

Negotiations and arguments

Forms 10 and 11 abounded then, between the Respondent’s lawyer and myself and the HRT, as we attempted to persuade the Interim Decisionmakers, Laurie Letheren and Dawn Kershaw, of the merits of our requests – me for adjournment to allow the Respondent time to provide the relevance of each of the 103 pages, his lawyer to plead that he had the right to a speedy hearing.

As time went on, his lawyer made the argument once again that I had placed the care provided to me at the centre of this matter, while I argued that no, like Evan Solomon, Mike Duffy, Jian Ghomeshi and Joe Fontana, when accusations are made against them it isn’t the good they have done that is at the heart of the matter. It is when mistakes are made, or discrimination carried out, that it ends up at a Tribunal and these are the matters to be looked at, not the good these people did. The lawyer’s Form 11 saying what she did, there, was ignored by the Interim Decisionmaker, Dawn Kershaw, in her Jan 15, 2016 Interim Decision, as were my remarks about what this case should be about.

Each time, the Interim Decisionmakers argued that this matter of the adjournment and the relevance of the items in the Medical Chart should be left to be decided at the hearing. And then I realized that this was not going to happen. It couldn’t happen. It was an illogical decision the Interim Decisionmakers had been making every time they said it.

It would take time, if the Respondent were ordered to write down the relevance or importance of each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. There’s not a hope that could happen at the hearing, while we are all sitting there. It would seem that they - the HRT Registrar, Richard Hennessy, or the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw - had no intention of deciding in my favour, that the doctor would have to provide the relevance of each of the documents.

What that means, in terms of the hearing, is that if I produce a document or an example of ill-treatment or disrespect he wishes to dispute, he can produce a document from the 103 pages to prove his argument. However, having only 7 documents and 2 audio recordings, I am limited in how I can make a point or defend myself against his accusations. I can speak, but I have not been granted credibility. So it is the harsh words and distortions in documents written by the Doctor and his receptionist that will be believed.

What’s worse is that, during this whole process, I was led to believe that the process would be fair, yet I was not given the option of seeking documents to contradict the 103 pages he decided to rely on. In fact, how could I? How could I begin to guess what he was going to produce, at the hearing, from his array of documents that he first mentioned back in July?

Three times the doctor produced that Medical Chart as his Document of importance, relevance, to rely on. And each time he not obliged to prove that the items in it were.

Discontinuity between the lead-up and the hearing

Late in the process it also sinks in that everything that happens during the initial process has nothing to do with the hearing. All that happens during these months of preparation, the HRT sending directions as to what should be submitted and when, and how they should be described, is forgotten once the hearing starts. What that means is that all the talk, all the arguments, all the lack of description regarding importance, relevance of the pages, etc. in the Medical Chart mean nothing once the hearing starts. It means that I can request that the doctor provide the relevance, right there, at the hearing, but that the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw, can simply say No. Or, she can say, This should have been dealt with before the hearing started. There is no time now.

All those submissions I made, beforehand, about my position, mean nothing, unless they are included in the documents I submitted to the HRT to be used at the hearing. That means that the medical research I provided links to on why older women who have had given birth and have had hysterectomies ought not and do not need to be sent off for an ultrasound on their bladders will not be there as evidence. Only my word will count, though the colleague witness of the doctor has said in writing that the treatment I received – including the pelvic ultrasound on my bladder, was within the standard of care limits. What that means to me is that I would not want him as my doctor. And secondly, that giving the patient the chance to ask questions beforehand and to find out what would be expected from her doesn’t matter to either of them. As for the request by the doctor for a urine sample from me to test for “street drugs,” it is still my view that he needs to take a course or two on how to communicate in respectful ways. See details of the incidents of discrimination:Statement on Pelvic Renal ultrasound incident Statement on drugs, urine termination incident

Just as importantly, the doctor needs to consider the differences between women who are young and those who are growing older, and how that may affect their diagnosis and treatment in matters such as kidney disease.

What is the purpose of such a lengthy process of requests for documents from the Applicant and the Respondent? Is it to wear out the Applicant through repeated failed attempts to achieve fairness at the hearing? See SJTO and HRT Rules of Procedure p 2

What counts more – credibility of witnesses or factual evidence? Stated another way, should interpretations and viewpoints of witnesses close to the event or to participants in it be granted the same evidentiary legitimacy as substantive proof in the form of reliable, objective, detailed research or tape recordings of the incidents in question?

When I made out an Application to the Human Rights Tribunal in 2015 claiming discrimination by my family doctor on the grounds of sex (gender), marital and family status, and age, I did so in the belief that my complaint would be taken seriously. I have come to see now that, rather than my evidence and knowledge forming the basis of my claim, the lies and distortions of truth told by the Respondent, his secretary, and a colleague not long departed from the Port Elgin/ Southampton area are being held up as truth (by them and decision-makers at the HRTO), despite my having provided evidence in the form of tape recordings and factual research that indicates otherwise.

I know that my words mean little or nothing to most people. And that is the underlying factor in this case. I have no husband to provide me with credibility. I have no property to enable me to be seen as a worthy person. I have no family nearby. I live alone, in a city that I once thought was a great city to live in – London, Ontario – but now having returned after years away – including a decade abroad – after 5 years here it no longer seems that great to me.

Interim Decision

Of significance here is the Interim Decision of October 8, 2015, which relieves the Respondent of the responsibility of having to provide the relevance/importance of each document within the Medical Chart, even though in their initial Response, it was a requirement that they do so, “they” being the Respondent and his lawyer. Their claim at the time (in their Response to my Application) was that my entire Medical Chart were documents intended to show the care provided to me, never mind that it is full of omissions, pages put together haphazardly, indecipherable scribblings by the doctor, not in chronological order, nor with dates on the pages – and no explanations of the relevance of each individual document. According to the Interim Decision, my requesting more detail was “premature”. And so now, according to the Notice of Hearing, Aug 11, 2015, when from that bundle the ones to be relied upon at the hearing were to be listed, by the end of December, 2015, the Respondent went directly to the new instruction, listing them, giving them titles, and numbers, but still neglecting to explain their relevance.

The pages of the Medical Chart (my medical chart) now have titles, but are out of order and not dated. More importantly, no mention of the relevance of these so-called documents that I received from the Respondent at the end of December, 2015 is included. It would appear that, through the manipulation of language, and the lack of familiarity of the Interim decision maker with my Application, the Respondent has managed to avoid having to provide the information originally required in his Response to my Application. Submitted as a whole, the chart may give the overall impression that the doctor was a caring doctor, but delve more deeply, and it would show he was not. But who has time to delve more deeply. The Human Right hearing lasts 2 days. Am I to spend that time defend myself by pointing out all the mistakes and lack of attention to detail in the Chart, including all that is irrelevant, nothing to do with this Application, but which may make me look bad in the eyes of the Human Rights adjudicator. Without an explanation as to their relevance, the documents are left to the adjudicator’s imagination to comprehend.

In my Application I focused on two matters only, ones I had proof for. Now, that has been turned around by the latest submission to me and the HRT by the Respondent, on Dec 29, 2015, which is the now titled and numbered Medical Chart, plus a statement by his secretary upholding his opinion, a secretary whose name I didn’t even know until I received the statement, as she never referred to herself by her name when she called, and the doctor did not either. The other witness statement is a so-called expert statement by a new colleague of the doctor’s, who did not reside or practice in London at the time but who seemingly is providing his objective views on the treatment provided to me, stating that it was appropriate.

In particular, I should think that sending a patient for renal ultrasound test, to rule out causes of kidney disease, and including an ultrasound on the bladder, was simply not well thought out – typical of this doctor’s attitude towards me – thoughtless, uncaring, and disrespectful. The witness colleague, a family physician also, directs readers to ‘Mosby's Family Practice Sourcebook - An Evidence-Based Approach to Care,’ for evidence (which they must seek out on their own, apparently, from within the book’s pages) that sending me for a bladder ultrasound - a 69-year women who has given birth 2 times, had a hysterectomy and is somewhat overweight - is within practice guidelines for a patient whose lab report shows “an initial abnormal creatinine clearance (eGFR)”. The witness colleague writes:

“While an ultrasound limited to just the kidneys would have been appropriate, it was stili within the standard of care to include the bladder to rule out other possible causes of chronic kidney disease” (Dec 27, 2015 physician witness statement).

The Two Incidents of Discrimination

See here for a more complete and coherent description and analysis of the ‘pelvic/renal ultrasound incident,’ taken from my original Application but rearranged in a more comprehensible format. I would simply state here that for a woman my age, with my reproductive history, and weight, sending me for an ultrasound test on my bladder was not only unnecessary, it was risky, and uncomfortable, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge of older women’s chronic health issues. His colleague also seems not to want to go into detail on the matter at hand in any serious way.

The witness secretary decided to interpret my manner during the second incident – see the ‘urine sample and “street drugs” incident and analysis’ - as rude, although I did submit to the HRT a while back a longer audio recording of the incident after the doctor himself accused me of shouting at his staff, for the benefit of the staff’s perhaps short memories. Originally, I submitted only the recording of what took place in the treatment room, during my appointment, but I decided to send in the rest of it, which included my taking the container for a urine sample to the washroom (after obtaining a key from the pharmacy), then changing my mind, returning the unlabeled jar to the secretary, leaving, then returning to ask for a form that I could take to the lab to have the urine test done there. By that time I had lost all faith in my doctor. The staff ignored my request, and so I left, going to a walk-in clinic and requesting that I be allowed to provide a sample of urine to test. I did so, but on inquiring time after time I was eventually told that the sample I gave to them had been lost.

[Another try has produced a 20 minute excerpt of the April 28, 2014 incident, with higher volume and greater clarity. It starts with changes being made to the Rx renewals, at approximately the half-way point going into the incident where the doctor demanded that I submit a urine sample for "street drugs" if I wanted a renewal on my prescription for two Tylenol 2 tablets daily, for pain due to 2009 broken ankle] (added June 25, 2016).

I have been unable to make a better quality mp3 from the original tape recording due to not having the proper equipment. Instead, I used technology available at a small cost online, but with limited capability. I have not asked for any damages from the HRT, thus would not receive any financial advantage even if my Application were successful. That’s not the reason I am doing this, although I must say I did not realize at the start the financial costs of engaging in this endeavour. I do believe, however, that the recording, lengthy though it is, heard in conjunction with the transcript, provides a better understanding of the emotional content of the incident, and situates it in real time, taking approximately 23 minutes.

Diffusion of Responsibility

This is the phenomenon whereby people are less likely to take responsibility when there are several other people involved. Thus, the in this situation, just to focus on the actual process of the HRTO, the caseworker may make a mistake, or the Legal Support team might, or the Interim decision-maker, or even the translation between the official HRT Rules of Procedure and items of correspondence sent to explain the process to Applicants and Respondents may use words differently, but in effect, open up the process up to misinterpretations and, significantly, to diffusion of responsibility. When so many people become involved, no one is obliged to take responsibility. No one will. And so, in the end, who is there on whom to place responsibility?

The diffusion of responsibility within the actual HRT process is one part of it. Another part is the diffusion of responsibility among the various doctors, secretaries, witnesses, lab workers, fax machines, photocopiers, and other forms of technology through which errors can be made, or Medical Rules and Regulations that state what is permitted and what not, that often leave no one person, such as the physician himself, obliged to take responsibility for errors, lack of knowledge, or lack of awareness of social influences on their own psyches in their interactions with patients.

A third part of the diffusion of responsibility is the fact that the Respondent has four first names, tending to confuse the issue of this doctor’s real identity. The name he uses in his local medical practice is the last name on the list, according to his profile with the CPSO (College of Physicians and Surgeons). Thus, the name he uses usually hasn’t appeared on official notices and documents sent by those involved in this Application, including myself. Instead, it is usually the first or second of the four names that get used. So who is this man, exactly? Is he the person listed as a CPSO member, who is named on the application, and the same person as the local London doctor, or by using this technique is he able to avoid taking responsibility, not really a part of these proceedings due to the name he is known not appearing in the documents?

Conclusion

I find myself in this dilemma of being up against “credible witnesses” due to the very reason I am making this Application to the HRTO, and that is that, largely due to being female, and older, and not having a husband, nor being a property-owner, and being alone here without family, I am in a vulnerable position of not having credibility. I also spent a few years abroad, before returning several years ago to the city where I came to do my undergrad degree after my marriage ended. My name then was Fulham, and I was a student of Sociology in the late 80s and early 90s. Thus, I am now in this situation of being up against people in the health care professions who are granted credibility to speak and be heard and believed while I am not. I have evidence of a factual nature, objectively-conducted research, and audio tape recordings. But that isn’t really good enough, is it. One needs family, association with a profession or academic institution, or a spouse, or property, or a career present or past, to provide one with the credibility and power to be heard and believed.

I was treated very badly by that doctor who made rude remarks about me to my face, mistreated illnesses, sent me for unnecessary tests, changed my medications for no good reason, would effectively end discussion by informing me that “the report’s back. You’re fine,” or telling me I am smiling thus must be feeling okay, and more. It seems to me that a doctor should be able to treat patients regardless of his personal feelings towards them. I realize I am one of those who don’t qualify for first-rate treatment, in this country of ours. But to see doctors openly abusing their position as knowledgeable and respected individuals part of a larger group of time-honoured professionals in Canada is regrettable.

Added Sunday, January 17, 2016

Further Response to Anonymous commenter

Yesterday, in a comment on this matter, Anonymous suggested I drop this action. I responded, and now have something else to add to what I said there, see below, in comments. On occasion we hear of accusations made against someone, and even of charges laid, followed by the retraction of the charges, or the accuser walking away from it, for whatever reason. When this happens, as does sometimes in cases involving sexual assault or sexual harassment, comments made by some readers in the comments section of the online newspaper then claim that the accuser realized she was mistaken, or had gotten over being upset over nothing at all, and was actually just another false accuser – another good reason why I should not quit this situation, even though it is getting even worse, as mistakes are made (mistakes?) in the process itself, which go unacknowledged and are not corrected, and the Respondent’s witnesses themselves are telling outlandish lies or giving questionable support to the treatment decisions made by the doctor. The two women who have made Interim Decisions, the latest just on Friday, the 16th of January, are taking shortcuts in their examination of the Forms of the Applicant and Respondent, and even of the Rules of Procedure for the HRTO. Hence, they come up with the Decision they probably want to make, not the one the evidence says they should. The latest decision-maker, Dawn J. Kershaw, is from London, I see after googling her name, so I would suspect that this is an issue of conflict of interests, since me and the doctor in question are also located in London. She made a number of decisions, none of them in my favour, and I had been the one bringing them to her. But the lawyer for the Respondent replied, and perhaps in error but I don’t think so, made me look like a nit-picker, simply for requesting a numbered copy of the 103-page Medical Chart containing my medical records.

She - the Respondent’s lawyer – had missed the deadline for Disclosure of Documents, so ended up mailing me a copy of the 103-page Medical Chart in haste – by regular mail - in no apparent order, not numbered, no explanation of the importance of each item, or its relevance to the acts of discrimination I had brought. The importance of the documents are required, but by presenting the bundle of documents as a single ‘document’, they got away with claiming that it showed the care provided to me, the Applicant.

Even at the time I asked the Legal Support Centre what was meant by the term document, and got only a vague answer. I suspect now it is one of those things that enable trickery to be played out, and by putting off dealing with the matter, as I described in an email earlier on Friday to the HRT, after receiving the Respondent’s From 11, but before the Interim Decision had been made, the Lawyer, or the HRT itself, can influence the outcome in the direction they prefer, and that is, that the doctor get off and I get blamed for being picky over requesting a numbered copy when according to the Respondent’s lawyer, she had already sent one to me, a claim that the Interim Decision-maker, Londoner Dawn Kershaw, took as truth because, well, she’s a lawyer and doesn’t lie.

If that Medical Chart is allowed to be used in its entirety at the hearing, I needed to know that the copy the HRT received at the end of December was numbered, and was numbered the same as my copy, on which I wrote the numbers myself, from 1 to 103.

The other requests I made were all denied. So my 8 pages and 2 audio recordings are up against his 103 pages, and according to this decisionmaker, as well as the previous one, it’s okay that the doctor doesn’t give the relevance of each of the items. So he can make claims on the pages which will be taken as truth simply because he is a doctor.

I was denied more time to prepare for the hearing. And my request to have the hearing taped was denied, though I am permitted to tape it myself as along as I transcribe it afterwards and provide copies to the Respondent and the HRT. But even if I do that, the audio tapes of the hearing are not to be made public, Kershaw says.

This is not a good situation. No wonder some women who try to get justice give up and walk away. And it’s not only men who give them a hard time during such proceedings. It’s women, too.

Added Monday, January 25, 2016

The aim of this HRT Application

Within the last few days something has become clear to me. My efforts over the last months had been focused on having the doctor take responsibility for explaining why he thought each of the items (most consisting of one or two pages) of the 103 page ‘Medical Chart of Ms McPherson’ were important or relevant to the hearing, and to have the hearing delayed until that matter could be resolved. Only recently have I realized that the refusal of the Interim Decision makers, Laurie Letheren and Dawn J Kershaw from the Human Rights Tribunal, to deal with the matter effectively and fairly, instead, informing me each time that I have to raise these matters at the hearing, was not only avoiding the issue and another example of ‘diffusion of responsibility,’ but a senseless decision – not even making sense.

These are the options the adjudicator will have, if these Interim Decisions and Case Direction are raised at the hearing. She can say, No, there is no good reason why the doctor should have to defend his view that the entire Medical Chart should be allowed, since he has already given his reason, that it describes the care provided to the Applicant. And then it will be up to me to prove otherwise, I suppose – if I get the chance - although by now I have only 8 pages of documents and my word is worth nothing in the eyes of the HRT. And by having to do that, it takes time away from the reason for having the hearing in the first place – the Doctor’s discriminatory practices and attitudes towards me.

On the other hand, the adjudicator might agree that the doctor should explain the relevance or importance of the documents he is relying on – in the 103-page Medical Chart. But how? Would he be required to do so right then, in the Chamber of Commerce room where the hearing is to be held, while the rest of us wait? Or would the adjudicator simply announce that this Decision should have been made beforehand and refuse to deal with it. The Medical Chart would stay, and it would have been seen by the adjudicator, and he could pull any pages from it he wanted to – words written by him, or his receptionist, making negative comments about me that I would then feel obliged to refute, making the hearing more about me than him. Those are three possibilities, but in truth we have no idea what the adjudicator will say or do.

In her Case Direction of January 22, 2016, Ms Kershaw wrote that she thought I was “unhappy” with her “failure to address” another Interim Decisionmaker’s decision (Letheren), but it was not her role to do so, she said. In fact - and I did express this thought - it is her ability not to look beyond the earlier Decision, instead, making the same decision, reinforcing the earlier error not to adjourn the hearing to deal with the relevance issue that was the problem, as well as not examining the relevance of the Medical Chart nor have the doctor do so well before the hearing.

I had put it this way, in an email on January 21 to the HR caseworker and the Respondent’s lawyer, about Kershaw’s Interim Decision of January 15, saying, in part,

“I asked that the decision-maker re-evaluate the material, but Ms Kershaw seems to have left out an inportant docuemtn - a Form 11 by (the lawyer), dated Jan 11. It's hard to know for certain because Ms Kershaw did not give dates to the Forms she was talking about, But it sounds like it. It is that Form 11 that stood between the first Form 10 of mine and what she refers to as my "amended version." Actually, it was not amended, It was a new Form 10 (Jan 12, 2016) made building on what (the lawyer) had written.

If she doesn't come to understand this now, she certainly won't at the hearing, where there is little time to think. It sounds to me like she already has her mind made up and that this process and hearing is a farce.” (S McPherson, email Jan 21, 2016).

This is an excerpt from Form 10 (Jan 12, 2016) submitted by me in response to the Respondent’s Form 11 (Jan 11, 2016) that Kershaw ignored and that formed the basis of my later email comments about this process and the HRT being a farce.

In response, in her Case Direction of Jan 22, Kershaw referred to the email, saying,

“With respect to the applicant’s comments about my making decisions and her characterization of the hearing and the process as a farce, I would caution the applicant that Rule A7.1 of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceedings.” (HRT Rules of Procedure, Kershaw, January 22, 2016, Case Direction, 2015-20652-I).

I have laid a complaint against Dawn Kershaw with the SJTO (Social Justice Tribunal of Ontario), which means, I understand, that my concerns will go right back to the Human Rights Tribunal for them to deal with as they please. As I said most recently, the Human Rights Tribunal is a farce. Perhaps it works for some people, but not for this particular case of discrimination. See details of the incidents of discrimination:Statement on "street drugs", urine sample and terminationStatement on pelvic renal ultrasound incident

One thing they - the lawyer for the Respondent and the HRT caseworkers and Interim decisionmakers - have been successful at is keeping me tied up with fighting this injustice of the Medical Chart and keeping the focus on it instead of the incidents of discrimination I am saying were perpetrated by the doctor. And now, it is Dawn Kershaw who is the problem – the person who will be the adjudicator at the hearing.

About Me

I graduated, as Sue Fulham, from Western University (UWO) in 1993 (HBA Sociology), and went on to do my MA in Sociology at University of Windsor. The title of my thesis was Women in transition: discourses of menopause. . . . . . . . . . . . I did my degrees later on in my life, having graduated in 1965 from Grade 13 at WCI in Woodstock, Ontario - as Susan Fulham - and raising a family - as Susan Herd. . . . . . . . . . . . . I started the blog in 2005, while living in England.